Wrong again. The most dangerous man on the planet is, and was, the POTUS. No one else has the power to unleash the kind of unmitigated hell POTUS can. Number 2 would be whoever holds launch authority over Russian nukes. #3 would be the Chinese equivalent. And so on, until you’ve listed all of the nuclear states.
He was a murderous thug and I’m not going to argue otherwise. But yeah, the Hitler stuff (and the baby-killing stuff) was absurd. You don’t leave Hitler in power for another 20 years.
I doubt that’s true, but it’s not the point. And no, I was not suggesting anything about letting him have Kuwait. I was not sure if MOIDALIZE was talking about the '91 war or the '03 war, so I was trying to make a post that included responses to both.
None of these had recently invaded a peaceful country after having recently gassed another country. I said at the time. Russia was reforming in a positive way. US had not yet elected W. who did like starting wars for weak reasons and the current leader of China didn’t have any invasions I recall on his resume. (Again, I am saying in 1991)
Fair enough but with politicians in this country comparing each other to Hitler in the last few years, I’m not going to quibble over a thug like Saddam being compared to Hitler. On a reasonableness scale, while it was still way off, it beats most of the comparisons I’ve heard.
I’ll give you that. He was a lot closer to Hitler than most people. 
This isn’t about Somalia, Myanmar, or North Korea. This is about you hand-waving off bloody massacres now being perpetrated because you seem to think that as long as it is foreigners being killed, we should have no interest in stopping it.
And, I should have made it clearer that I was exaggerating and using the exact quote I expected him or his administration to make.
That said, my overall point is, if the no-fly zone is successful in toppling the Colonel and there is a power vacuum there, eyes will likely turn to us to help maintain order. Once that happens, especially if you start to see people claiming to be the Libyan branch of Al Qaeda blowing things up, we’ll get more and more sucked in.
Like what happened in Kosovo, right? NATO had no interest in a ground war, we flew a bunch of missions, and then we got sucked in to a Vietnam-like war, right?
There are plenty of good reasons to oppose – or at least be concerned about – establishing a no fly zone over Libya. You have a great proclivity to gloss over those substantive concerns in order to trot out the stupidest reasons.
In Kosovo, you had a group of people who were already largely ethnically separated trying to form a separate country. I don’t see any indications that forces in Libya are trying to split the country in two, East Libya and West Libya. The guys in the East are trying to topple the government, not break away.
Here are my reasons (in no particular order):
- We have no business there – we just don’t. If were just going in because of humanitarian concerns, there are bigger humanitarian fish to fry.
- It’s expensive. $100-$300 million per week adds up to billions in 3 to 10 months and that’s if there is no further engagement. That’s money better spent here.
- It’s unlikely, in my view, that it won’t lead to further engagement. If the Colonel’s regime is toppled, there will be a power vacuum and we’ll feel like we have to step in. Then, the costs will sky-rocket.
- From a realpolitik standpoint, it doesn’t help us at all.
- We are already engaged in two conflicts in the area, one that seems to be settling down but could flare up again, and another that is heating up.
- Why the US? Why NATO? Libya isn’t a member nation. Why doesn’t the Arab League take care of this? How about France – they are less engaged in Afghanistan than the rest of NATO. Now is their time to shine.
- We are talking about cutting after-school funding, food programs for the poor, pre-natal care. We will be literally taking food from Americans to bomb Libyans.
What is the benefit to the US?
And that’s why you are having problem with the whole idea. I don’t think it’s really about benefiting the US, or the NATO.
(Of course politicians always try to find some benefits in what they do)
Then, what is it about? It’s certainly not the worst humanitarian crisis going on these days. He’s not the worst dictator.
Let us know when you have an idea what to do about the worse ones.
Will do! In the mean time, let’s stay out of Libya.
Well your thoughts seem to be much better organized now.
The US seems hesitant to get involved anyway.
One worry and I think the bigger one then the money is there appears to be a fear that the Rebels may be worse then the Colonel in the end. This may not be a pro-Democracy doing the bulk of the fighting but a core of radical Islamic groups.
I’ll admit fully to being ignorant on this subject.
I agree we need to not put forces into place on Libyan soil. I still think if the UN decides to request a no-fly zone we can and should offer support from our Med carrier group and leave it at that.
Under this standard–deferring action on all problems until the very worst can be addressed–most people and nations will never do anything about anything.
Yeah, well, this is the Pit and I was ranting. There’s a debate going on over in GD if you’re looking for organized.
Yeah, whatever. I’m not saying we defer all action, I’m saying we stay the heck out of Libya. If you want to make another pit thread lamenting the US inaction on Libya, hey, more power to you.
The Libyan Rebels have *asked *for a no-fly zone, as have the Arab League. The stark fact is that the rebels can’t respond to Gaddaffi’s air power, so unless the playing field is levelled for them, there’s a very real chance the rebellion will be crushed and that Gaddaffi will take bloody revenge on hundreds of thousands of civilians who dared oppose him. The death toll has already reached the thousands, but that’s nothing to what will happen if he wins.
So the question is this: Do the US and Europe really believe in supporting democracy, or do they only do so when it’s convenient? Are they full of shit, or are they prepared to back up their words with action, even when it’s likely to cost them?
I have a better solution: let’s airlift in the 1st Keyboard Kommando company of the 72nd Airborne Chickenhawk Division. They’ll settle this whole matter while suffering no casualties, killing no civilians, and cleanly imposing a Western-style democratic government.
Of course they don’t.
I think the Arab League should go for it. If they don’t have sufficient planes and equipment, I’m sure we’d be happy to sell them more.
What? Of course not. When the Palestinians voted in Hamas, it’s not like we engaged that democratically elected government with open arms. The only democracy in the Middle East is Israel, right? They are certainly not our only friends over there. Jeez, where have you been?
What makes you think, Bibliovore, that the Libyan rebels will install a democracy?
Why is it our concern what form of government Libya has?
Where are we going to get the money to pay for imposing a no-fly zone?
Incidentally, if it were done twere well it were done quickly. Judging from the headlines, Uncle Muamar is going to win in a few days.